Elbow contact above the shoulders.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If we enforced all rules verbatim from the book, we would have 3 second call on every play.

What? Let me get this straight. Are you implying that advantage/disadvantage has something to do with some violations?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If we enforced all rules verbatim from the book ...

I can see your point, but this is not only a rule, it's a 2012-13 NFHS point of emphasis.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can see your point, but this is not only a rule, it's a 2012-13 NFHS point of emphasis.

I agree. The only problem is, there is probably 20 different intreps nationwide.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's (stationary equals moving no faster than the torso) how we were instructed by CHSAA at the master clinic.

Correct. I didn't realize this was a state interpretation. In Colorado you can have a moving elbow and still call it stationary...go figure

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

Correct. I didn't realize this was a state interpretation. In Colorado you can have a moving elbow and still call it stationary...go figure

We were told it was directly from the NFHS (powerpoint and a phone call), yet other than Washington, we seem to be alone.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Toren

In Colorado you can have a moving elbow and still call it stationary.

I blame Albert Einstein.

[just another ref]

POE: Contact with an elbow in movement should be an intentional foul.

State: An elbow moving with the torso is considered stationary.

Translation: We don't want that many intentional fouls called (me: it really isn't that many) and this sounds better than "Ignore this POE."

[jeremy341a]

I still claim if stationary was to include pivoting then their would only be 2 levels, Stationary and excessive. There would be no need for an elbow in movement.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by just another ref

POE: Contact with an elbow in movement should be an intentional foul.

State: An elbow moving with the torso is considered staionary.

Translation: We don't want that many intentional fouls called (me: it really isn't that many) and this sounds better than "Ignore this POE."

I agree it won't be that many. It took me 33 games to see it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

POE: Contact with an elbow in movement should be an intentional foul.

State: An elbow moving with the torso is considered staionary.

Translation: We don't want that many intentional fouls called (me: it really isn't that many) and this sounds better than "Ignore this POE."

Then you aren't really paying attention to what we're writing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I still claim if stationary ...

Stationary? It's all relative. My little corner of Connecticut is rotating, east to west, at a speed of 700 miles per hour, while we're all on a planet moving at a speed of 67,000 miles per hour around our closest star. Is you head spinning yet? Anybody need any Dramamine?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Stationary? It's all relative. My little corner of Connecticut is rotating, east to west, at a speed of 700 miles per hour, while we're all on a planet moving at a speed of 67,000 miles per hour around our closest star. Is you head spinning yet? Anybody need any Dramamine?

I agree to this and I am also fine with it being interperted as stationary. However if the pivioting elbow is indeed to be ruled as stationary then we do not need 3 levels in the POE: stationary, moving, and excessive. We only need two levels of stationary and excessive.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree to this and I am also fine with it being interperted as stationary. However if the pivioting elbow is indeed to be ruled as stationary then we do not need 3 levels in the POE: stationary, moving, and excessive. We only need two levels of stationary and excessive.

Not true.
Contact with a stationary elbow( elbow moving at the same speed as torso) may be a common foul or nothing.

If the elbow is moving faster than the torso, but not excessive, that would be intentional.

If it is excessive, it can be intentional or flagrant personal foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If the elbow is moving faster than the torso, but not excessive, that would be intentional.

Elbows moving faster than the torso is by definition "excessive." 4-24-8a.

That's (one of the) the problem(s) with the FED interp / wording. Maybe "moving" = "stationary" and "excessive" in one rule <> "excessive" in another.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Not true.
Contact with a stationary elbow( elbow moving at the same speed as torso) may be a common foul or nothing.

If the elbow is moving faster than the torso, but not excessive, that would be intentional.

If it is excessive, it can be intentional or flagrant personal foul.

This by definition is excessive.